This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-05-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In his Order dated 27 February 2004,[7] DOLE Regional Director Atty. Rodolfo M. Sabulao (Regional Director) ruled that respondent is an employee of petitioner, and that the former is entitled to his money claims amounting to P203,726.30. Petitioner sought reconsideration of the Order, claiming that the Regional Director gave credence to the documents offered by respondent without examining the originals, but at the same time he missed or failed to consider petitioner's evidence. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied.[8] On appeal to the DOLE Secretary, petitioner denied once more the existence of employer-employee relationship. In its Order dated 27 January 2005, the Acting DOLE Secretary dismissed the appeal on the ground that petitioner did not post a cash or surety bond and instead submitted a Deed of Assignment of Bank Deposit.[9] | |||||
|
2008-09-23 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Code[31] - and the CA erred when it saw grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC's ruling. The evidentiary situation, at the very least, brings to the fore the dictum we stated in Prangan v. NLRC[32] and in Ni cario v. NLRC[33] that "if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. It is a time-honored rule in controversies between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements and writing should be resolved in the former's favor." | |||||
|
2006-05-05 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| It is a time-honored rule that in controversies between a worker and his employer, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements and writing should be resolved in the worker's favor.[28] The policy is to extend the applicability of the decree to a greater number of employees who can avail of the benefits under the law, which is in consonance with the avowed policy of the State to give maximum aid and protection to labor.[29] Accordingly, we rule that private respondents are solidarily liable with the foreign principal for the overtime pay claims of petitioners. | |||||